First Potential History, then Sam O'Nella Academy, and now Red Wrench Films all posting new videos for the first time in a while all within a week? It's like Christmas come early!
So the M4A3E2 Jumbo was not designed to go up against, one on one, Tiger or any other German tanks. The roughly 250 of them were built as “Urban Assault” vehicles. This due to great German tank guns but also hand held anti tank weapons like Panzerfaust. What I wanted to tell you is that most had 75mm for this roll and a number, I have zero idea, had the 105mm assault gun. It was great at its roll in urban assault.
You're mostly right on that, it was treated as more of an assault gun than a tank, doctrine wise anyways. It was mostly used for assaulting heavily fortified positions manned by enemy infantry. A small number of E2s did mount 76mm guns in an altered turret, but the 75mm and 105mm armed versions were much more common, since the larger HE shell was seen as being an asset in an assault role.
@@Kitkat-986 the turret doesnt actually have to be modified since the gun mount was designed with the 76 in mind while the turret was an armored variant that was originally equipped with a 76mm gun.
Wait... they made an M4a3e2 that had a 105mm? I don’t think it would be a field modification, though wierder things have been done. I feel like it would loose a pretty significant benefit from the T110 Mantlet thickness. I can’t see them choosing the 75mm because of it’s HE/AT balance, and then doubling down on the 105mm. Also, in June 1944 the Shermans, and by extension the Jumbos, were given Wet storage racks. I don’t know the particulars of reworking one into a 105mm, but ammo storage would be an issue. The M4a3e2 has a Union Steel/Ordnance steel model based on the T23. The T110 gun system the Jumbo used was was a modified 76mm M62 mount that still took ~75 man hours to put in 76mm ammo racks. Even still, this was from spare 76mm salvages. A 105mm Jumbo would need a very dedicated overhaul and a very patient officer allowing a modification that extensive with a war on. And not for nothing, but I don’t think a factory model makes sense either. At least, none more than a test bed. The D78541 turret of the M4/M4a3 105mm used the M52 mount. It was purpose made for extended fire missions. I’m not sure the Jumbo T23 turret had the same ventilation. The 105mm Sherman was purpose made for direct fire to replace the M37s. So they already made a couple M4s with 105mm howitzers intended as assault guns that already had indirect fire capability attention paid into their design. If they wanted the jumbo to be a Sturmpanzer, they omitted these things in an effort to retain some anti-armor flexibility. It does make sense thematically, if one wanted to lean even further into that support piece role. Not saying the T23 couldn’t fit it, cus I’m not sure. The whole Jumbo run was an experiment by itself, but only 254 or so were made. One being made as a 105mm would be notable, and I’d love to see it. Sounds like a WOT thing.
@@Green-ader there’s plenty of documented evidence of the Jumbo being up-gunned to 76mm M1a1 cannons. The Cobra King even got one when it was made into a command vehicle.
Would you ever be open to the idea of making a video on the M6A1? I think its really interesting and the way you make your videos with so much informative would be a perfect format! Thanks again for another great video!
Yeah it's a super interesting vehicle! The only thing is I try to avoid vehicles that have already been covered by other creators, I prefer talking about the ones that haven't had their chance in the spotlight. Cone of Arc does a great video on the M6A1 if you haven't seen his yet - ruclips.net/video/WY_rbv949Rw/видео.html
interesting picture at 4:00, clearly a T26E5, still with the GAF (see the exhaust), yet with the little tensioning idler found on M46. I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like the sprockets been moved up too to accommodate this, or perhaps a new transmission?
I misunderstood the last bit of the video, the M46 Patton was as well armored as the regular (I guess base) M26 Pershing, or as well armored as this T26E5 "Super Jumbo" Pershing? (Or the T26E5 was better armored than the M46 Patton? If so, when was the armor protection eclipsed, the M47 or M48?)
@@shouhanyun8203 Not how it works just because it doesn’t pen doesn’t mean it won’t spall especially with the lower quality German steel that was extremely brittle late war, the T33 APBC shell used by the 90mm M3 had a penetration of 165mm at 1km, that hitting the tiger 2 turret face would damage the turret and cause internal spalling even without penetration but it would vary on each tank and wouldn’t always cause spalling but irl it doesn’t have to penetrate to cause damage to a tank. Also the IS-2’s 122mm shell couldn’t pen the Tiger 2’s frontal plate but it’s sheer kinetic force could cause the welds of the tank to break and the front plate to fall off but that was once again primarily due to the bad quality and rushing the manufacturing process.
This vehicle is an absolute blast to use in War Thunder. It’s kinda like how Tiger players are so braindead that their minds were fried when they had to face Sherman Jumbos… But now imagine that Tiger is a King Tiger, and the Sherman jumbo had twice the armor thickness and a much, much better gun.
Great video - I had never heard of the T26E5. Just to add, no tank produced during WW2 could withstand the fire of an 88 L/56, much less an L/71, at normal combat ranges. Even the IS-2 was vulnerable.
The L/56 using the standard APCBC “only” had around 100mm of penetration at 1km - this meant that tanks like the IS/M26 and even the Sherman Jumbo could shrug off shots from a Tiger. In fact, German sources recorded that even a “normal” Sherman’s front plate was almost immune to the Tiger if the Sherman was angled at 30 degrees. Obviously all of these vehicles have weak spots but these aren’t easy to aim for or hit at any sort of range.
@@RedWrenchFilms Typical engagement range in the ETO was well under 500 meters though. A 1000m hit with WW2 gunsights was tough to achieve. For all practical purposes the 88 could kill any enemy tank. Of course, so could the US 90mm or the soviet122mm.
First Potential History, then Sam O'Nella Academy, and now Red Wrench Films all posting new videos for the first time in a while all within a week? It's like Christmas come early!
You're too kind!
So the M4A3E2 Jumbo was not designed to go up against, one on one, Tiger or any other German tanks. The roughly 250 of them were built as “Urban Assault” vehicles. This due to great German tank guns but also hand held anti tank weapons like Panzerfaust. What I wanted to tell you is that most had 75mm for this roll and a number, I have zero idea, had the 105mm assault gun. It was great at its roll in urban assault.
You're mostly right on that, it was treated as more of an assault gun than a tank, doctrine wise anyways. It was mostly used for assaulting heavily fortified positions manned by enemy infantry. A small number of E2s did mount 76mm guns in an altered turret, but the 75mm and 105mm armed versions were much more common, since the larger HE shell was seen as being an asset in an assault role.
@@Kitkat-986 the turret doesnt actually have to be modified since the gun mount was designed with the 76 in mind while the turret was an armored variant that was originally equipped with a 76mm gun.
Wait... they made an M4a3e2 that had a 105mm? I don’t think it would be a field modification, though wierder things have been done.
I feel like it would loose a pretty significant benefit from the T110 Mantlet thickness. I can’t see them choosing the 75mm because of it’s HE/AT balance, and then doubling down on the 105mm.
Also, in June 1944 the Shermans, and by extension the Jumbos, were given Wet storage racks. I don’t know the particulars of reworking one into a 105mm, but ammo storage would be an issue.
The M4a3e2 has a Union Steel/Ordnance steel model based on the T23. The T110 gun system the Jumbo used was was a modified 76mm M62 mount that still took ~75 man hours to put in 76mm ammo racks. Even still, this was from spare 76mm salvages. A 105mm Jumbo would need a very dedicated overhaul and a very patient officer allowing a modification that extensive with a war on.
And not for nothing, but I don’t think a factory model makes sense either. At least, none more than a test bed.
The D78541 turret of the M4/M4a3 105mm used the M52 mount. It was purpose made for extended fire missions. I’m not sure the Jumbo T23 turret had the same ventilation. The 105mm Sherman was purpose made for direct fire to replace the M37s. So they already made a couple M4s with 105mm howitzers intended as assault guns that already had indirect fire capability attention paid into their design. If they wanted the jumbo to be a Sturmpanzer, they omitted these things in an effort to retain some anti-armor flexibility.
It does make sense thematically, if one wanted to lean even further into that support piece role. Not saying the T23 couldn’t fit it, cus I’m not sure. The whole Jumbo run was an experiment by itself, but only 254 or so were made. One being made as a 105mm would be notable, and I’d love to see it. Sounds like a WOT thing.
@@PaulScunnion207no, all M4A3E2’s were equipped with a 75mm not a single one was equipped with a different sized cannon
@@Green-ader there’s plenty of documented evidence of the Jumbo being up-gunned to 76mm M1a1 cannons. The Cobra King even got one when it was made into a command vehicle.
I've always called the T26E5 the Pershing Jumbo
The heavy pershing
Would you ever be open to the idea of making a video on the M6A1? I think its really interesting and the way you make your videos with so much informative would be a perfect format! Thanks again for another great video!
Yeah it's a super interesting vehicle! The only thing is I try to avoid vehicles that have already been covered by other creators, I prefer talking about the ones that haven't had their chance in the spotlight. Cone of Arc does a great video on the M6A1 if you haven't seen his yet - ruclips.net/video/WY_rbv949Rw/видео.html
interesting picture at 4:00, clearly a T26E5, still with the GAF (see the exhaust), yet with the little tensioning idler found on M46. I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like the sprockets been moved up too to accommodate this, or perhaps a new transmission?
Hey, I’m glad you’re back! I missed your videos!
Nice videos!
I misunderstood the last bit of the video, the M46 Patton was as well armored as the regular (I guess base) M26 Pershing, or as well armored as this T26E5 "Super Jumbo" Pershing? (Or the T26E5 was better armored than the M46 Patton? If so, when was the armor protection eclipsed, the M47 or M48?)
Red wrench video? Glad to see you back
A good video! I dont think the M26 Pershin was hopelessly outmatched though. It is a far lighter vehicle and cheaper than the Tiger 2.
The M26 was also more so the equivalent of the Tiger 1. The US equivalent to the Tiger 2 was the T30 and T34 but they weren't needed
@@WaukWarrior360 I do believe the M26 is better than the Tiger I and Panther.
Yay he's back, I hope your studies weren't too stressful😅
Piece of cake... (!)
The americans had the Pershing, the germans had the Tiger, the soviets had the IS.
You mean: KV-1. The Russians were the first to field heavy tanks successfully.
We're talking late war buddy@@Mthammere2010
Thick armor but still the same gun as regular Pershing which Tiger II was immune to at least to it's AP rounds.
The Tiger 2 wasn't "immune" to the Persings 90mm
@@WaukWarrior360 It was from the front for the most part, unless you started firing apcr. Then it goes straight through the turret.
@@shouhanyun8203 Not how it works just because it doesn’t pen doesn’t mean it won’t spall especially with the lower quality German steel that was extremely brittle late war, the T33 APBC shell used by the 90mm M3 had a penetration of 165mm at 1km, that hitting the tiger 2 turret face would damage the turret and cause internal spalling even without penetration but it would vary on each tank and wouldn’t always cause spalling but irl it doesn’t have to penetrate to cause damage to a tank. Also the IS-2’s 122mm shell couldn’t pen the Tiger 2’s frontal plate but it’s sheer kinetic force could cause the welds of the tank to break and the front plate to fall off but that was once again primarily due to the bad quality and rushing the manufacturing process.
@@shouhanyun8203 real life is much different than war thunder
What a sad ending
correction the M26 Pershing is a Heavy tank
It was reclassified as a medium in May 1946
@@RedWrenchFilms do you have a fully detailed video of the history of the M26 Pershing?
@@warlordshaxx856 not yet!
@@RedWrenchFilms i'm believe in you
looking forward to it, i hope i didn't annoy you too much on discord
Has a Tiger 1 had a 8.8cm KwK 43 in it?
No, that's the tiger II's gun
Bruh just call it the t26 wumbo just trying to chase the Sherman jumbos thunder smh
Basically same story as IS-3.
The patriot!
This vehicle is an absolute blast to use in War Thunder.
It’s kinda like how Tiger players are so braindead that their minds were fried when they had to face Sherman Jumbos…
But now imagine that Tiger is a King Tiger, and the Sherman jumbo had twice the armor thickness and a much, much better gun.
Great video - I had never heard of the T26E5.
Just to add, no tank produced during WW2 could withstand the fire of an 88 L/56, much less an L/71, at normal combat ranges. Even the IS-2 was vulnerable.
The L/56 using the standard APCBC “only” had around 100mm of penetration at 1km - this meant that tanks like the IS/M26 and even the Sherman Jumbo could shrug off shots from a Tiger. In fact, German sources recorded that even a “normal” Sherman’s front plate was almost immune to the Tiger if the Sherman was angled at 30 degrees. Obviously all of these vehicles have weak spots but these aren’t easy to aim for or hit at any sort of range.
@@RedWrenchFilms Typical engagement range in the ETO was well under 500 meters though. A 1000m hit with WW2 gunsights was tough to achieve. For all practical purposes the 88 could kill any enemy tank. Of course, so could the US 90mm or the soviet122mm.
I play WT alot but the T26E5 is still penetrable from the front
Its a game. Not reality. German metallurgy issues are not replicated. Propellant quality and lack of tungsten not factored in a GAME.
@@UkrainianPaulie yeah it's a game, what did you think it was?
if it’s american its the best EVEN if it fails it’s still the best in the world 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
A true patriot ^
@@RedWrenchFilms 🦅🦅🦅🦅
As opposed to "muh German engineering"?
I hope your being sarcastic
Yeeee-hawww, sure did whup 'em, boy
Thank you for not showing dead bodies. It makes the videos unwatchable. We should get the word out to other history video makers.
So let’s censor reality? Your soft!
Bruh you're watching a video about WW2??
👎
Been in 3 wars 1988-2012. Grow a pair. Reality is uncomfortable sometimes. Snowflake.
@@burnttoaster6313grow up snowflake